When you read the approaches he recommends for the various types of books, they also seem pretty sound. He certainly doesn't seem to denigrate the authority of Scripture at all.
Now you didn't answer my question, "wouldn't you agree that where secondary meanings and/or fulfillments are to be found, there should be some direct clue in the text that tells us? We shouldn't be simply assuming such, should we?" But it seems to me that his suggested questions probe for information that would encourage the careful student to determine that from the text and its surrounding context (which he emphaiszes).
Now, I realize that this doesn't mean that he would arrive at the same view of Daniel or Revelation as you would, but it seems to me that our 'rules' of interpretation should not guarantee a particular presupposed outsome. I assume you agree?
Since I like this well enough to build on it for future use, what additional questions do you think the careful student should be encouraged to answer with regard to a passage? [You can restrict to your categoriew of prophecy, parables and Revelation or not as you wish.]
1. Not in the case of parables. I think it's perfectly rational for the reader to use the methodology Jesus proposed with the parable of the sower and use it with the other parables. My point is that this would be a VALID way to handle parables.
2. The context of prophecy is important to establish the meaning. The context would be the secondary clues you're looking for.
3. The inductive bible study method and the questions used has never been the point here. The point has been the insistence on the author's part in establishing the conclusions of the debate in the areas of prophecy, parables, and apocalypse without mentioning that there is another side in the debate that is equally valid.